This case is a civil suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act by former Army member Charles Targett against the United States, alleging personal injuries from radiation exposure during military service at Camp Desert Rock in 1954-1955 and from the government's post-discharge failure to warn him of radiation risks, conduct medical surveillance, or inform him of warning signs like hair loss. The government moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction under the Feres doctrine (barring claims for injuries incident to service) and the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations. The court denied the motion, holding that Feres does not bar claims based on post-discharge negligent acts or omissions (citing Brown v. United States and Broudy v. United States), and that the limitations period did not begin until Targett discovered the causal link in 1981, as shown by his uncontroverted affidavit.
This case is a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act in which the Sierra Club and individual plaintiffs alleged that the EPA failed to publish proposed national emission standards for radionuclides, a hazardous air pollutant listed by the agency in 1979, within the 180-day statutory deadline. After previously granting partial summary judgment finding the EPA had violated its mandatory duty, the court addressed the plaintiffs' motion to set a compliance schedule and rejected the EPA's request for an extension as late as 1989. The court ordered the EPA to issue the proposed regulations within 180 days, holding that the agency had not met its heavy burden of proving impossibility or infeasibility from resource constraints or the need for further study, that such an open-ended delay would effectively repeal Congress's mandate to accelerate hazardous air pollutant controls, and that any relief from the statutory timeline must come from Congress rather than the courts.
This case concerns a civil action by Indian residents of the Table Bluff Ranchería against federal officials and a county tax collector, alleging that the termination of federal trust status over ranchería lands under the 1958 California Ranchería Act (as amended) was wrongful and breached trust and contractual obligations, while also challenging local property taxation of the lands. Plaintiffs sought class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, rescission or damages, and an order barring further taxation. The federal defendants conceded that the termination was improper, that trust duties continue, and that distributees should have the option to reconvey lands to the United States. The court reviewed the Act's requirements for a majority-approved distribution plan and undisputed evidence showing the trust lands could not be taxed or alienated without termination, finding no material factual disputes on liability issues aside from damages amounts.
This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a California state prisoner against prison officials, alleging that assignment of female corrections officers to posts permitting periodic viewing of him while showering, using the toilet, or sleeping violates his constitutional right to privacy and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court recognized that prisoners retain a privacy interest in their unclothed bodies that is consistent with their status and penological interests, and found that the existing cell design, viewing windows, and officer rotation practices cause repeated invasions of that interest. It denied the requested preliminary injunction that would have barred female officers from those assignments, reasoning that privacy could be preserved through other means without unduly burdening equal employment opportunities, and directed defendants to submit proposed procedures balancing both interests while retaining jurisdiction to review them.
This case involves challenges by Indian people of the Hopland Ranchería to the termination of their lands under the California Rancheria Act, claiming the United States failed to fulfill its duties to provide sanitation and irrigation facilities before distributing the property. On motions for partial summary judgment, the court examined the record showing that no agreements were reached with the Secretaries of the Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare as mandated by Section 3(c) of the Act. The federal defendants agreed that the termination was unlawful and that the trust relationship remains in effect, allowing distributees to reconvey lands if not sold to good-faith purchasers. The court determined that summary judgment was appropriate on these issues due to the absence of genuine factual disputes.
This case involved merchant seamen who obtained unsatisfied default judgments in California state court against their insolvent employer, Amercargo, for personal injuries sustained aboard its vessels, and who then sued the employer's marine insurer directly to recover on those judgments. The policies at issue were indemnity contracts requiring the insured to actually pay losses before seeking reimbursement from the insurer. The court held that New York law governed the contracts because they were negotiated, issued, and to be performed in New York by New York corporations, and that under New York precedent such as Cucurillo, an injured party cannot recover directly from an insurer under an indemnity policy when the insured has not paid the underlying claim. The court therefore entered judgment for the defendant Association.